-13-
attributable to Mrs. Marzullo for purposes of section
6013(e)(1)(B), we do not do so on the basis that the corporate
identity of MPM should be disregarded. Rather, we sustain
respondent's determination because it was Mrs. Marzullo who
generated MPM's income, with only modest assistance from Mr.
Marzullo. Thus, we conclude that the understatement resulting from
the understated income of MPM should be attributed entirely to Mrs.
Marzullo.
In reaching our conclusion, we believe it appropriate to
analogize MPM's income to community property income. With regard
to community property, unreported income may be "attributable" for
purposes of section 6013(e) to the spouse whose substantial
services were required to generate the income. See Allen v.
Commissioner, 514 F.2d 908, 913 (5th Cir. 1975), affg. in part and
revg. in part 61 T.C. 125 (1973); Grubich v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1993-194. In the instant matter, although Mr. Marzullo owned
49 percent of MPM's stock, his involvement in producing the income
of the business was limited in comparison to the role played by his
wife. In addition, we give more weight to control than to stock
ownership in deciding the spouse to which income from a family
business should be attributed for purposes of section 6013(e). See
Meyer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-400.
Mrs. Marzullo should not receive the benefits of innocent
spouse relief to avoid tax on her own business income. Accordingly,
Mrs. Marzullo is not entitled to innocent spouse relief with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011